The Global Warming Myth

Hi,I was referred to a website recently of a NZ chap who disputes that humans have contributed to global warming (and also seems to dispute global warming at times). Predict Weather - the home of long range weather I read what he had to say and don't agree with pretty much any of the content and spent some time researching his "facts" and wrote up my own critique. But, because my line of work is in conservation and my ecology studies are part time (and still in the basic realm) I wonder if my search for evidence is myopic.What I would like to hear are your views on his assertions. Global warming is still a contentious issue, and as stated above, I'm open to the fact I could be missing something obvious.I would quote him on his assertions here but for the copyright on his website.So here is a break down of some of his ideas and my thoughts. For the sake of brevity in this post, I will keep my thoughts minimal but am happy to expand on them:1. The planet is cooling.I disagree, evidence shows that the average global temperatures are rising, such as that presented in this site: Information Sheet 1 redirection2. There would be no adverse effects if the CO2 content of the atmosphere was doubled.Not so sure about this one. I became lost in the gigatonne ratios and formulas, etc...3. CO2 does not rise because of its molecular weight. It sinks, so therefore cannot enter the atmosphere. The CO2 that is up there is blasted heavenward by volcanoes, not from our burning of fossil fuels.What the ...? I would have thought that CO2 gases given off from combustion would rise. Isn't that why smoke detectors are installed up high?4. 71% of CO2 is dissolved in the oceans, so not much is kept in the atmosphere.Wouldn't a large portion of that be evaporated back into the atmosphere? Also, doesn't "dissolved" CO2 form carbonic acid, lowering the pH levels in the oceans and pose problems to marine life?5. Scientists do not understand exactly how CO2 "gets" from the oceans to the trees.The Water Cycle?6. If CO2 really did contribute to global warming then Mars would be a lot hotter than it is.I thought it did have a warming effect, even given its weak atmosphere.
Mars Facts | Temperature, Surface, Information, History & Definition7. We should really cut down all the forests and plant saplings as they absorb more carbon than mature trees.I am especially interested in this one - in regards to the absorption rates of young vs mature trees as this seems to be a contentious issue. As for the felling of all forests - that strikes me as rather *loony*8. Because we only inhabit 1.4% of the Earth's surface it is human vanity to imagine that we could contribute this much to global warming.I'm not sure if he's factoring in the amount of space we impact on. Perhaps it's human ignorance to assume we couldn't contribute this much?9. (My favourite) Why invent global warming? Scientists want all the lucrative research funds.Come on guys, you're exposed now, 'fess up.This is just a sample of his assertions. Out of all of his "facts", only one has a source attached and he waves the rest off as "school science".Any thoughts welcome.Kakarikibtw: He also promotes his weather prediction books (based on lunar cycles). Don't write that off too quickly, he does have supporting evidence based on a spinning pot lid and "lunar cultures"

Thanks for your thoughts Kuresu, sorry that his "facts" raised your ire! I saw red when browsing his website too. Yes I have heard this theory too, that an Ice Age is preceded by warmer weather - something to do with our orbit around the sun?? Nothing to do with the moon that I have heard anyway. Thanks for that, have you checked out the "Ozone Depletion Myth" on the website, lol! Scientists are a crafy bunch - it's another conspiracy! Yes, I think he has used the figures to suit his message (go buy another SUV, everything's AOK).He actually featured on NZ's National Radio Program. I don't mind the fact that he has his own thoughts on the issue, but to be disseminating information like this, seemingly not backed up is reckless. I'm sure he knows that he is appealing to the people who are resistant to lifestyle changes, and the rest.Kakariki

Hi Quetzal,Thanks for your replies. I thought you would come up with some interesting facts I looked around for quite some time on that figure and couldn't verify it at all. Perhaps he did some 'lunar calculations'? Yucky stuff. I can't stand those fastfood places, they are awful places, ecologically, ethically and aesthetically.But the methane issue is still a contentious one, at least among farmers here (wonder why). I attended a public lecture last week on climate change, and a very feisty farmer stood up and said that methane did not contribute to the greenhouse effect. The other farmers there voiced their agreement.Not long ago the government proposed a methane tax for farmers, as a means to help meet the ever increasing Kyoto deficit we're facing. This proposal was met with so much dissent by the farmers it had to be dropped. An MP from the opposition party actually drove a tractor up the steps of parliament (must have been election year). It all comes down to balance, doesn't it. I quite like James Lovelock's Gaia theory to explain cause and effect in the environment.Kakariki

Hi crash, Well yeah, the first search I ran came up with a very simple rundown of Mars' atmosphere and explained the greenhouse effect CO2 has there. He didn't even check this most basic fact.I find it so strange that this guy will happily face the media with this crazy stuff.Kakariki

Hi RAZD! Oh really! Maybe I should copyright a long rambling speel on my website debunking his lunar/weather theory because the moon really is made of cheese (scientists are yet to catch up on this) and therefore actually has a huge influence on milk quality in freisan cows and all goats. Hehe! And he waves it off as school science. I wonder what school he went to?Kakariki

Does anyone know what the difference (if any) is between the CO2 absorption rates between growing saplings and mature trees?There seems to be a trend in thinking that the younger trees take in more carbon, so therefore they should be harvested when the growth slows and then more trees planted.My thoughts are that mature trees will have more photosynthesising foliage and therefore she should continue to function as an effective CO2 'sink'. Also, established forests play so many important roles in the environment. Although any decomposing trees will release greenhouse-causing gases, the overall benefit of a forest (IMO) should outweight this.Whatsmore the continued felling and planting of CO2 'sinks' would surely create problems of its own, soil 'sterility', adverse impacts of fertilisers, and the energy involved in processing the harvested timber, etc.Kakariki

Thanks again for your input RAZD. I see what you are getting at. I wonder however if it's a case of '6 of one, half dozen of the other'. The weeds and grass around the saplings have a shorter life cycle and would not hold the carbon for long before they die and decompose, releasing the gases straight back out. A mature forest, although perhaps not absorbing as much when established would trap the carbon for longer. Being that a mature forest also provides a plethora of benefits to the environment, would it not be all round a more logical method?Kakariki

Hi Quetzal, Are you able to provide me with a link to this information? It would be great to have this on hand. Scarey stuff! I guess the good thing here is that farming is not the backbone of the country it used to be. More and more farmers are selling off their land - often to property developers (which isn't so great). The legendary Shania Twain bought a huge station in the South Island I would also like to hear your opinion on the most effective method for carbon sink planting? i.e. grow and harvest versus reforesting?Thank you for you thoughtsKakariki

Thank you Quetzal for the links. This is my opinion too The conservation group I work with is starting to move into the carbon sink planting field, but encorporating it into our reforesting mission. I guess also, it's like the old saying "if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well" - we may as well use it to address other environmental issues too.Kakariki